(*) Doctor of Law; Graduate in Political Sciences; Staff Legal Advisor in
charge of Arabic and Muslim Law at the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law,
Lausanne; Lecturer at the Institute of Canon Law, University of Human Sciences,
Strasbourg, France. The author is most grateful to Jacqueline Maire, of ETHIC,
New Westminster, Canada, to Martin Sychold, Staff Legal Advisor at the Swiss
Institute of Comparative Law, and to Frederick Hodges, for having translated
this text from the French original. This text is also available in French and
Spanish version which can be ordered directly from the author.

Article 24, paragraph 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, of 20
Nov. 1989, stipulates:

States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to
abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children[1].

In 1984, the President of the Inter-African Committee stated:

An erroneous idea of Religion has played a key role in maintaining the practice
of excision and other practices which tend to relegate the woman to a lower
status in relation to the man[2].

In April 1987, the Vice-President of the Inter-African Committee reiterated:

I request more aggressive tactics to put an end to the practice of
infibulation. I call for more active support especially from the religious
leaders of Islam after it has been confirmed many times that this practice is
contrary to the precept of Islam[3].

In this Committee's opinion, religion and Muslim religious leaders play an
important role in the matter of female circumcision. The goal of this study is
to define this role in male circumcision as well as in female circumcision. We
shall on purpose avoid any use of the word Islam, as too abstract a
notion, and we shall concentrate on the written sources of Muslim law and the
opinions of contemporary Arab authors, mostly of Egyptian origin.

The English language uses different terms to designate sexual mutilations.
Generally, one speaks of circumcision for boys, and of circumcision, excision
or infibulation (depending of the case) for girls. In this study, we shall use
the terms male circumcision and female circumcision[4].

The legal Arabic jargon uses the word khitan for male circumcision and
the term khafd or khifad for female circumcision. But the
everyday language uses the term khitan for both mutilations. There is
also taharah, meaning purification, these mutilations being said
to be purificatory to their victims[5].

Female circumcision has triggered a passionate public debate in the West. Many
national, non governmental, and international organizations are showing their
concern[6]. This debate has
found somewhat of an echo in the Arab world. The feminist circles demand its
abolition, while at the same time, the Muslim religious circles try as often as
they can to justify female circumcision, only in the form called sunnah,
which is said to be the one conforming to the tradition of Mohammed[7]. But the Arabic juridical
literature shows very little interest for this issue[8]. The Arabic medical profession
does not seem to be much interested either: constituted of a majority of men,
its responsibility is to perpetuate social and moral values which are
predominant in its society, thus blindfolding its members[9].

Contrary to female circumcision, male circumcision does not really interest
anyone[10]. The debate on the
topic is still taboo. This attitude can be observed in the previously mentioned
article 24, paragraph 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In spite
of a general wording, the preparatory studies prove that its authors had only
female circumcision in mind and not male circumcision at all[11].

The distinction made between male circumcision and female circumcision might be
justified for medical and cultural reasons. According to Wedad Zenie-Ziegler,
an Egyptian woman:

There is no similarity between male circumcision, a prophylactic measure
recommended for boys in almost every society and female circumcision, the goal
of which is to diminish, if not suppress sexual desire in women[12].

During the UN Seminar in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), the majority of
participants agreed that the justifications of female circumcision based on
cosmogony and those based on religion "must be assimilated to superstition and
denounced as such" since "neither the Bible, nor the Koran recommend that women
be excised". They recommend ensuring that, in the minds of people, male
circumcision and female circumcision be dissociated, the former as a procedure
for hygienic purposes, the latter, excision, as a serious form of assault on
the women's physical integrity[13]. This reasoning is groundless
and extremely dangerous. If female circumcision was in the Bible or the Koran,
would it be allowed no matter what? And if one decided to put into practice
everything that is said in the Bible and the Koran, starting with the law of
retaliation?!

Another opinion came from Ghita El-Khayat-Bennai, a Moroccan woman:

Women are not alone in being subjected to sexual mutilations. Every Jew all
over the world for example is circumcised on the 7th day without much concern
on the part of his parents. They keep circumcising their male offspring, even
knowing this to be an extremely traumatic event, preferring to subject the
little boy to pain rather than face their own fear and cultural taboos as
adults[14].

Geneviève Giudicelli-Delage writes:

No doubt the consequences are of lesser importance in male circumcision than
they are in female excision (although some practices of minimal excision
could be seen as identical to male circumcision). But nevertheless, to take a
position in view of consequences alone would be a mistake. Custom justifies the
most serious actions, even death: the essential here is not action, but
culture. If a family from Mali may in France have a son circumcised, but may
not have a daughter excised, it is because male circumcision belongs to a
cultural order which is more or less ours, male circumcision belongs to this
Judeo-Christian ideology which is the melting pot of our culture and this
ideology does not know excision and never did[15].

For Doctor Gérard Zwang, the reason for making a distinction between the
two types of circumcision is simple: most sexologists and most men in charge of
information about it are circumcised [Jews]. They oppose any debate on the
subject of male circumcision[16].

Juridical logic cannot acknowledge the distinction between male and female
circumcision, both being the mutilation of healthy organs and consequently
damaging the physical integrity of the child, whatever the religious
motivations lying underneath[17].

Male circumcision is practiced by all Muslims and Jews and also by some
Christians, as is the case for Christians in Egypt. It is also practiced by
animist tribes in Africa.

As for female circumcision, it is neither practiced by all Muslims, nor by all
Arabs. In fact, many if not most of the Maghreb countries as well as Turkey and
Iran ignore this custom[18]. On
the other hand, one can find it among the Egyptian Christians[19] and the Ethiopian Jews
(Falachas)[20] who in all
probability keep practicing it in Israel today, as do Africans living in
France. Sudan (98%), Somalia (98%) and Egypt (75%) are among the largest Arabic
countries practicing it. In Egypt, 97.5% of uneducated families impose
circumcision upon their daughters compared to 66.2% of educated families[21]. Other Arabic countries
practice it too: Yemen, the United Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, some areas
of Saudi Arabia, Mauritania. It appears to be done also in some Muslim
countries of Asia such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and India under the
name of sunnah circumcision, here with a reference to religion. But
precise data on the subject are not available. In Africa, 28 countries appear
to practice it, among them many animist tribes. It seems to affect about 75
million women[22].

Often, male or female circumcision is performed without anaesthesia in a
barbaric manner, by persons without any medical training, such as barbers or
midwives, using rudimentary instruments causing complications sometimes leading
to death. We have many tragic testimonies on female circumcision but none on
male circumcision as obviously nobody is interested. Still today, I can recall
my youth and hear the screams coming from my young Muslim neighbours while they
were being circumcised. Let us quote here the briefest and least shocking of
the women's testimony, that of Samia, a Muslim girl born in a small Egyptian
village close to the Sudanese border, who now lives in Cairo:

I was seven years old when I was excised. I recall the stories from women of my
village who spoke of this operation as if their whole life had stopped there
and then. The atrocity of their descriptions and at the same time a feeling of
inescapable doom had triggered such a panic in me that when the terror-laden
day came, I began to vomit. What happened then is still excruciatingly burning
my flesh, so much so that I often wake up in the middle of the night screaming
and calling for my mother[23].

Generally the victim is mutilated without anaesthesia, lying on her back, legs
kept wide apart by helpers or by one only lying under the young girl, her
ankles being hooked in the helper's feet. To immobilize a 7 years old, you
sometimes need the help of 5 persons to restrain her head, arms and legs. When
the girl is a toddler, one assistant alone can manage body and thighs at the
same time, while holding her in a sitting position.

There are many different kinds of male circumcisions: The circumcision per
se consisting of total or partial excision of the foreskin; phallectomy;
castration; emasculation. Only the first kind is of interest to us due to its
frequency and its ritual characteristics. The other three seem to be less
common and we do not have enough information on them[24].

There are as well many different kinds of female circumcision:

- The female circumcision called sunnah or according to the tradition of
Mohammed. The religious circles in favour of this type of female circumcision
do not always give details on what is done. According to a classical author,
Al-Mawardi, "it is limited to cutting off the skin in the shape of a kernel
located above the genitalia. One must cut the protruding epidermis without
performing a complete ablation"[25]. For Doctor Hamid Al-Ghawabi,
it is the ablation of the clitoris as well as labia minora[26]. According to Doctor Mahran,
the hood of the clitoris is excised as well as the most important parts of the
labia minora[27].

- Clitoridectomy or excision. It consists of the ablation of the clitoris as
well as labia minora. It is the operation of choice in Egypt.

- Infibulation or pharaonic circumcision. It is practiced in Sudan and Somalia
and involves the complete ablation of clitoris, labia minora and part of labia
majora. The two sides of the vulva are then sewn together with silk or catgut
stitches (Sudan) or with thorns (Somalia) in order to close the vulva, except a
very small opening for the passage of urine and menstrual flow[28]. On the wedding night, the
groom will have to open his bride, more often than not with a double edged
dagger. In some tribes, the woman is sewn back each time her husband goes
travelling and is opened again each time he comes back. In case of divorce, the
woman is sewn up to forbid her any possibility of intercourse[29].

Let us mention that in the West, female circumcision and especially
infibulation were performed in the past. One of those chastity belts was made
by passing rings in the labia and vulva, wiring them shut or closing them with
a lock, the key of which was kept by the husband especially when going away[30]. In Russia, the Skopotzy
(circumcisers) who are Christians, have practiced infibulation to insure
perpetual virginity: they call upon Matthew 19:12: "... and there be eunuchs,
which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake"[31]. A particular type of female
circumcision practiced by the Kikuyu tribes in Kenya is said to be performed
today in some of the hospitals in Paris to accentuate the pleasure potential in
some women of the upper class of society. The clitoris is disengaged and pulled
back inside the vagina. Such a practice is said to add to women's sexual
pleasure[32].

Muslim law has two main sources: the Koran and the Sunnah (tradition:
words and actions) of Mohammed, to which one must add the igtihad,
tenets of the schools of Muslim law through the centuries.

Nowadays a specific part of igtihad is getting more and more important:
namely the fatwas (opinions of Muslim religious scholars), which are
often worded in a language accessible to the masses, defining which behaviour
conforms to the Divine Will[33]. Though juridically non
binding, the fatwas are nonetheless morally obligatory for the believer
and at times the first step toward the promulgation or the modification of
laws. They are given in writing or orally and are often published and sold on a
wide scale[34]. Many pertain to
male and female circumcision.

We confine our study here to the works and anthologies of modern fatwas,
mostly Egyptian ones, referring to classical books of Muslim law. This choice
is justified by the fact that the public at large seldom has access to the
classical books.

When Abraham was put to the test by his Lord, through certain commandments, he
carried them out. God then said: "I am appointing you a guide for the
people".

One of the commands given to Abraham, as a test, was circumcision, as mentioned
in some of the sayings of Mohammed. Abraham is a model for the Muslim faithful
by virtue of verse 16:123:

Then we inspired you (Mohammed) to follow the religion (millat) of
Abraham, a true believer...[35].

It is relevant to note the rule of the Muslim law according to which norms that
were revealed to the prophets prior to Mohammed are valid until unmistakably
nullified. Thus the Bible, by a process of referral, becomes a source of law
for the Muslims. One can read:

God told Abraham: "...Here is our alliance which shall be observed between me
and you, i.e. thy race after thee, may all your males be circumcised.
You shall have the flesh of your foreskin cut off and it shall be a sign of
alliance between me and you...When they reach their 8th day all your males
shall be circumcised from generation to generation... My alliance shall be
branded in your flesh as a perpetual alliance. The uncircumcised, the male
whose foreskin has not been cut off, this very life shall be cut off. He
violated my alliance"[36].

Circumcision as a sign of alliance can only be found in two other passages of
the Bible[37]. Elsewhere, it is
more narrative: King Saul demanded one hundred Philistine foreskins from David,
before he gave his consent to David marrying his daughter Mikal: "David...
thought it was a good deal in order to become the king's son in law... He went
to war...He killed 200 Philistine men, brought back their foreskins, counted
them in front of the king....So Saul... had to admit that Jehovah was on
David's side"[38].

This interpretation of the Koranic verses with reference to the Bible is
considered abusive by Imam Mahmud Shaltut (israf fil-istidlal)[39]. What is more, this textual
argument based on Jewish law concerns male circumcision only, not female
circumcision that the Bible does not mention and that the Jews do not practice
(Falachas excepted). Al-Sukkari answers that, according to Ibn Hagar, the Jews
used to circumcise both sexes, which is why he rejects male and female
circumcision on the 7th day, so as not to look like them. Even the authentic
Bible - today's one is considered falsified - does not contain any text related
to female circumcision. Nonetheless, the Muslims must practice it, if the
Muslim law makes provision for it[40].

We will try here to glean, from the works of contemporary Arab authors, the
different sayings of Mohammed related to male and female circumcision.

- The most often mentioned narration reports a debate between Mohammed and Um
Habibah (or Um `Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was
one of a group of women who had immigrated with Mohammed. Having seen her,
Mohammed asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered
affirmatively adding: "unless it is forbidden and you order me to stop doing
it". Mohammed replied: "Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if
you cut, do not overdo it (la tanhaki), because it brings more radiance
to the face (ashraq) and it is more pleasant (ahza) for the
husband". According to others, he said: "Cut slightly and do not overdo it
(ashimmi wa-la tanhaki), because it is more pleasant (ahza) for
the woman and better (ahab, from other sources abha) for the
husband". We shall hereinafter refer to this narration as the exciser's
narration.

- Mohammed said: "Circumcision is a sunnah for the men and
makrumah for the women". The term sunnah here means that it is
conform to the tradition of Mohammed himself, or simply a custom at the time of
Mohammed. The term makrumah is far from clear but we can translate it
into a honorable deed.

- Speaking to the Ansars' wives, Mohammed said: "Cut slightly without
exaggeration (ikhtafidna wa-la tanhikna), because it is more pleasant
(ahza) for your husbands".

- Someone came to Mohammed and became a convert before him. Mohammed told him:
"Shave off your unbeliever's hair and be circumcised".

- Mohammed said: "Let him who becomes a Muslim be circumcised, even if he is
old".

- One asked Mohammed if an uncircumcised man could go to pilgrimage. He
answered: "Not as long as he is not circumcised".

- Mohammed said: "Five norms define fitrah: shaving of the pubis,
circumcision, moustache trimming, armpit depilation and nail clipping". Other
narrations name ten norms amongst which circumcision is always mentioned. The
norms of fitrah are believed to be those taught by God to His creation.
The man in pursuit of perfection must conform to those norms. They are not
compulsory, but simply advisable (mandubah), except for circumcision
which is mandatory. Based on these premises, Al-Sukkari believes Adam to have
been the first circumcised man. His descendants having neglected their
obligation, it was reconfirmed to Abraham and his descendants. Thus
circumcision would be the sign which would differentiate the believer from the
non-believer. Therefore, circumcision is the sign of Islam[41].

- Mohammed has stipulated: "If both circumcised parts (khitanan) meet
or if they touch each other, it is necessary to wash before prayer". From this,
it may be deduced that men and women were circumcised in Mohammed's time.

The Shiites add a narration by Imam Al-Sadiq stating: "Female circumcision is a
makrumah, and is there anything better than a makrumah?" They
cite Al-Sadiq as the reporter of the exciser's narration[42].

The supporters of circumcision themselves (male or female) acknowledge that
those narrations attributed to Mohammed offer little credibility[43]. Mahmud Shaltut states that
they are neither clear nor authentic[44]. Sheikh Abbas, Rector of the
Muslim Institute at the Mosque of Paris, is even more adamant:

If circumcision for the man (though not compulsory) has an aesthetic and
hygienic purpose, there is no existing religious Islamic text of value to be
considered in favour of female excision, as proven by the fact that this
practice is totally non-existent in most of the Islamic countries. And if
unfortunately some people keep practicing excision, to the great prejudice of
women, it is probably due to customs practised prior to the conversion of these
people to Islam[45].

Female circumcision having fragile foundations in the Koran and the
Sunnah, Al-Sukkari tries to strengthen those foundations in calling upon
custom, which constitutes a source of Muslim law. For him, female circumcision
has become the norm in as much as it is general, it has been practiced for a
long time and it is not contrary to any text of religious law.

He refers to the rule according to which what is not forbidden is allowed. Thus
female circumcision, not being expressly forbidden, remains permitted[46]. Even if narrations related
to female circumcision are not credible, none has shown up to forbid it or
declare it blameworthy. One of the principles of Muslim law is that it is
better to apply the norm that to give it up[47].

However, this author forgets that the Muslim law allows a custom based on
ignorance to be abolished. In effect, the Koran states:

When they are told: "Come to what God has revealed and to the Messenger". they
say: "Sufficient for us is what we found our parents doing". What if their
parents lacked the knowledge? And the guidance? (5:104).

Indeed, he reverses the rule. Instead of supporting physical integrity,
indirectly he speaks in favour of the principle of mutilation.

This argument can be summed up as follows: Can we imagine a God who demands
that his believers be mutilated and branded on their genitals the same as
cattle? Doctor Nawal El-Saadawi, an Egyptian woman, herself excised, writes:

If religion comes from God, how can it order man to cut off an organ created by
Him as long as that organ is not deceased or deformed? God does not create the
organs of the body haphazardly without a plan. It is not possible that He
should have created the clitoris in a woman's body only in order that it be cut
off at an early stage in life. This is a contradiction into which neither true
religion nor the Creator could possibly fall. If God has created the clitoris
as a sexually sensitive organ, whose sole function seems to be the procurement
of sexual pleasure for women, it follows that He also considers such pleasure
for women as normal and legitimate, and therefore as an integral part of mental
health[48].

It has very often been proclaimed that Islam is at the root of female
circumcision, and is also responsible for the under-privileged and backward
situation of women in Egypt and the Arab countries. Such a contention is not
true... Religion, if authentic in the principles it stands for, aims at truth,
equality, justice, love and a healthy wholesome life for all people, whether
men or women. There can be no true religion that aims at disease, mutilation of
the bodies of female children, and amputation of an essential part of their
reproductive organs[49].

Renée Saurel goes over the argument again. She writes:

The Koran, contrary to Christianism and Judaism, permits and recommends that
the woman be given physical and psychological pleasure, pleasure found by both
partners during the act of love. Forcibly split, torn, and severed tissues are
neither conducive to sensuality nor to the blessed feeling given and shared
when participating in the quest for pleasure and the escape from pain[50].

Both sources mentioned above refer to religion, Islam, Christianity and
Judaism. Those abstract notions contain the most conflicting components.
It is better to refer to written sources than to abstract notions. It must also
be pointed out that this argument is as valid against male circumcision as it
is against female circumcision. However, both authors use it against female
circumcision only.

It is not difficult to find support for the above argument in the Koran itself.
Indeed, verse 4:119 does not allow man to change God's creature:

[The devil said]: "I will mislead them, and I will create in them false
desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattles, and to deface the fair
nature created by God".

This verse appears to condemn any change of God's creation. It is referred to
by Islamists to oppose permanent birth control, be it by measures affecting the
man or the woman[51]. Oddly,
male and female circumcision enthusiasts forget this verse completely. They
also forget the following one: "He perfected everything He created" (32:7).
Aziza Kamel, adversary of female circumcision, refers to this verse and adds:
"Excision is a distortion of what God created because God is satisfied with His
creation"[52].

Mohammed had told some farmers not to pollinate their date trees. That very
year, the trees did not bear any dates. Having returned to Mohammed for
explanations, they were told: "You know your worldly business better [than I
do]".

The last passage of the narration was quoted by Sheikh Hassan Ahmed Abu-Sabib
from Sudan in his presentation to the Seminar on Traditional Practices
having consequences on the Health of Women and Children (affecting Women's and
Children's Health) in Africa (Dakar, Feb. 6-10, 1984). Strengthened by this
narration, he comes to the conclusion that female circumcision must be banned
because medical science has proved it to be harmful. Then, he says, the Koran
forbids man to harm himself by virtue of verse 2:195: "Do not throw yourselves
with your own hands into disaster". Elsewhere, Mohammed said: "Who harms a
believer, harms me and who harms me, harms God".

This Sudanese Sheikh did not pursue his reasoning to its end. In the narration
about the date trees, Mohammed did not want to consider himself as infallible
in botany and so admitted that the farmers knew more than he did on the subject
in spite of his quality as a prophet. By analogy with female and male
circumcision, this narration means that Mohammed indeed could not be infallible
on the subject and could be contradicted by medical science. Our Sheikh does
not go so far. He separates Mohammed's answer from the whole narration about
the date trees and just states that Mohammed's narrations on female
circumcision are not reliable, calling on the authority of his counterpart,
Imam Shaltut. He concludes that the issue of male and female circumcision must
be judged according to its disadvantages and advantages[53].

In spite of this minor inconsistency, his advice against female circumcision is
the most explicit known to us on the part of a contemporary religious Muslim
leader.

All of the aforementioned religious arguments are written solely and
exclusively against female circumcision. Though they could very well be used
against male circumcision, their authors never do so and not without purpose.

Indeed, the only Muslim author to have cast doubts on male circumcision has had
legal action brought against him and might be sentenced to death for apostasy.
I am speaking of (retired) Judge Mustafa Kamal Al-Mahdawi, a personal friend of
mine, who is today under a ferocious attack lead by Libyan religious circles in
the mosques as well in the press. The preacher of the Mosque of the Prophet, in
Medina, Saudi Arabia, published in July 1992 a pamphlet handed out free of
charge in Libya. In this pamphlet, he asks the Muslim Arab League and the
Islamic Conference to set up a collective fatwa of all Muslim scholars
against this judge and to execute him as an apostate if he does not retract. As
for his book, the preacher asks that it be removed from the shelves, burned and
forbidden to any reader. He blames the judge for having, among other things,
denied that male circumcision is compulsory when there is unanimity in favour
of it and when Mohammed was Himself circumcised[54].

In fact, this Libyan judge insists that male circumcision is a Jewish custom;
the Jews believe that God would only see them if they had distinctive marks
such as circumcision or blood stained doors. He refers here to God's command
given to the Jews that the blood from sacrificed cattle be put on jambs and
lintel of houses at the time of Passover because He intended to kill all
firstborn in Egypt. God said to Moses and Aaron: "The blood shall be a sign on
the houses where you live. Seeing this sign, I shall pass over those doorways
and you shall escape the destructive calamity when I strike down the people of
Egypt"[55]. The Libyan judge
adds that the Koran does not mention this "peculiar logic". For him, God does
not devote Himself to such banter no more than He created the foreskin as a
superfluous object destined only to be cut off[56]. He quotes verse 3:191 which
states:

Our Lord, You did not create all this in vain! Glory be to You! So spare us the
agony of hell[57].

Imam Ahmad deems only the prayer and pilgrimage of the circumcised to be worthy
of acceptance. Imam Malik refuses access to public office to, and testimony
from, a non-circumcised person. Others go as far as forbidding that meat killed
by a non-circumcised person be eaten[58]. This school puts forward the
following justifications:

- Verse 16:120 requests that Mohammed follow the path of Abraham. Abraham was
circumcised at a very old age, when he was 80 years old, according to others
120, in spite of the suffering that circumcision could cause him. Had it not
been mandatory in Abraham's opinion, he would not have subjected himself to
it.

- Different sayings of Mohammed related to circumcision and mentioned
earlier.

- During the era of the Companions of Mohammed, male and female circumcision
was carried out.

- The condition of being non circumcised keeps impurity in the body and
renders prayer null and void, the same way as an unclean mouth does.

- Circumcision (male and female) causes pain. Pain is permissible only for
benefit, punishment and obligation. Since benefit and punishment are
inapplicable, circumcision (male and female) is an obligation[59].

According to this school of thought, male and female circumcision falls under
sunnah, the meaning of which jurists disagree upon. It can have two
meanings: the tradition of Mohammed himself, or simply a custom at the time of
Mohammed[60]. Considered as
sunnah, it would be advisable and not mandatory[61].

Those in favour of this qualification call upon the narration which compares
circumcision (male and female) to a norm of the above mentioned fitrah.
As such, it has man's perfection as a purpose. Though it is desirable, the
Muslim believer is under no obligation to have it done. They add that many
persons joined Islam without Mohammed ever searching [under their clothes] to
see if they were circumcised or not[62].

The modern authors opt for this opinion. Al-Sukkari states that male
circumcision is mandatory because of the smell and the repugnant, greasy
substances secreted and kept under the foreskin. This uncleanness renders
prayer invalid. But as purity is necessary for prayer, circumcision becomes
compulsory according to the legal rule which states: what is necessary to
fulfil an obligation becomes in turn mandatory.

On the other hand, the female having no foreskin and therefore no source of
impurity "down there", female circumcision is only advisable. Two reasons
underlie the recommendation of female circumcision:

For Professor `Abd-al-Wahhab Khallaf, the term makrumah means that
female circumcision adds to the man's pleasure[64]. Shaltut states that female
circumcision is a makrumah for the men who are not used to feeling this
protruding piece (za'idah) piece of flesh[65].

The majority leans toward the meaning of a commendable or meritorious act on
the part of the woman. It is Professor Zakariyya Al-Birri's opinion that it is
better to carry out female circumcision. Anyone who does not do it does not sin
if he is convinced in the light of religious texts and doctor's advice that he
is under no obligation to conform (to it)[66]. Al-Qaradawi leaves the
choice to parents according to their beliefs, in spite of the fact that he
favours female circumcision, because it protects girls' morality "especially
nowadays"[67].

A fatwa from the Egyptian Fatwa Committee dated May 28, 1949, has
declared that abandoning female circumcision does not constitute a sin[68]. Another fatwa from
the same body dated June 23, 1951, is more rigid. Not only does this
fatwa not recognise the abandonment of female circumcision as an option,
but is further of the opinion that it is advisable to carry it out because it
curbs "nature". Moreover, this fatwa considers doctors' opinions on the
disadvantages of female circumcision irrelevant (see Chapter III, Paragraph 3,
point 2)[69].

A third much more detailed fatwa from the same institution dated January
29, 1981, is adamantly opposed to giving up female circumcision. The author of
this fatwa is the present Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar, the most famous
University of the Islamic World in Cairo. He insists that it is impossible to
abandon the lessons of Mohammed in favour of the teaching of others, be they
doctors, because medical science evolves and does not remain constant. The
responsibility of female circumcision lies with the parents and with those in
charge of the girl's welfare. Those who do not abide by it do not do their
duty[70].

Al-Sukkari tries to explain the difference between boy and girl
vis-à-vis the religious norm:

- Abraham circumcised himself and he would not have done it, had it not been a
duty. But there is no evidence that Abraham ordered female circumcision[71]. This is instead a command
from Mohammed according to the above mentioned exciser's narration.

- Male circumcision is a sign which separates Muslim men from the non-Muslim
ones. As for the woman, one should adopt a respectful attitude toward her and
not impose a physical examination to see if she is circumcised or not.

- Male circumcision helps prevent many diseases, cancer among them, and
reduces having to resort to masturbation. This opinion is also put forward by
Imam Mahmud Shaltut for whom the boy's foreskin hides germs harmful to his
health, which is not the case for the girls[72].

Jurists have asked themselves if public authority can force a Muslim to submit
to circumcision, especially if he is getting on years. The Zaydites and the
Shafiites answer affirmatively. According to the Hanafite School, if a group
rejects male circumcision, the Head of State must declare war (against this
group). However, some say that a man may be spared circumcision if it endangers
his health. Al-Sukkari, a modern author, is of the opinion that health nowadays
is not a problem. The Muslim man who fears for his health can ask a doctor to
carry out the operation under anaesthesia and with the help of modern
equipment.

The Hanbalites say that male and female circumcision is an Islamic ritual; the
man can force his wife to be excised as well as to force her to pray. The
Ibadites consider as invalid the marriage of a non-circumcised Muslim even if
it was consummated. The woman may ask for legal separation. If the husband gets
circumcised after its consummation, the marriage remains invalid; he must go
through another ceremony in order to get his wife back. For the Hanbalites, the
non-circumcision of the husband is a breach of contract giving the woman the
choice of asking for divorce or continuing the marriage. For some, the
non-circumcised man has no right of guardianship of a Muslim and no right to
give his consent to the marriage of a Muslim relative. In this case, the
marriage is dissolved, except if it was consummated.

Al-Sukkari, a modern author, grants the woman the right to dissolve the
marriage if the husband is not circumcised, because his foreskin can be a
vector of diseases. It can also be a source of repulsion, thus preventing the
realization of the objectives of marriage, id est love and understanding
between partners. The woman has a right to be married to someone handsome and
clean, Islam being the religion of cleanness and purity[73].

Ahmad Amin emphasizes the importance of circumcision in the Egyptian's mind by
telling this anecdote: a Sudanese tribe wanted to join Islam. The chief wrote
to a scholar of the Al-Azhar to ask him what was to be done. The scholar sent
him a list of demands, putting circumcision in first place. The tribe then
refused to become Muslim[74].

For the majority of believers, to belong to Islam implies de facto male
circumcision. In Java, to circumcise a boy is translated by: to welcome
someone in the bosom of Islam; in Algiers, during the colonial era, the
printed invitation to the religious ceremony named it in French:
baptême (baptism). In Muslim life, it is an important cause for
family celebration, which is not the case for female circumcision, always
carried out secretly[75].
According to the Saudi religious authorities, a man who converts to Islam must
get circumcised, but in case he refuses to join Islam for fear of the
procedure, this demand may be postponed until the faith is stronger in his
heart[76].

On a social level, the non-circumcision of a female has serious consequences.
In some countries, the non-circumcised girls do not get married and people then
start talking about them, as if they were guilty of misbehaviour, possessed by
the devil. In the Egyptian countryside, the matron practicing female
circumcision delivers a certificate which is used for the marriage[77]. Wedad Zenie-Ziegler writes
that the Egyptian country women are surprised to learn that their sisters in
Cairo are not excised. They burst into laughter, interrupted by scandalized
comments: "Really it is not done? Girls remain like that uncut? And they don't
become wild?"[78]. El-Masry
reports the statement of an Egyptian midwife who had circumcised more than 1000
girls. To her, "one should lynch the fathers who were opposed to excision of
their daughters, because these fathers were in fact willing to see their girls
become whores"[79]. In Sudan,
where infibulation is practiced, brothers have tried to protect their young
sisters from this torture. Most of them were evicted from the paternal home
after terrible quarrels, the parents accusing them of being depraved and of
trying to transform their sisters into shameless creatures. Very few succeeded:
but, to put an end to the neighbours' gossip, they had to bring their
sisters to live under their own rooves in Khartoum or Atbara. "Because in
Sudan, it is as unusual not to sew girls' genitals as in the West, it is
unusual not to bath the children. It sets the tongues wagging"[80].

According to classical Muslim jurists, male circumcision involves the cutting
of the foreskin, preferably the whole foreskin. If the man has two penises,
some say that both should be circumcised, others say that only the one passing
urine should be circumcised. If the child was born circumcised, some are of the
opinion he should be left as such, while for others, the knife should be passed
over the emplacement of the foreskin to fulfil the Commandment. If the
circumcision is incomplete, it should be completed[81].

Al-Sukkari, a modern author, describes female circumcision as follows: "For a
start, God should be called upon by saying the opening statement: in the name
of God, most gracious, most merciful, followed by praise to God and prayer to
the Prophet, the author of this supreme makrumah". Female circumcision
must be carried out by one male or female surgeon of Muslim faith and devout
appearance, knowledgeable of the teaching of Mohammed. The best medical means
must be used to reduce pain. Female circumcision must be done by day to allow
the physician to perform in full day light, but also in full secrecy; only her
mother or her tutor must be present, or the one who feels the most compassion
for the girl[82]. He does not
clarify what female circumcision consists of. For Gad-al-Haq, female
circumcision consists of "cutting the skin which is located above the urinary
orifice without exaggeration and without rooting it out"[83]. Al-Sha`rawi stipulates that
if the girl does not have any flesh protruding, circumcision should not
be done[84].

What is described above as in compliance with sunnah remains
theoretical. In fact, it is rather clitoridectomy (performed in Egypt) or
infibulation (performed in Sudan and Somalia). In Sudan, a study has brought to
light that 64% of female circumcisions are done by the traditional matrons, 35%
by midwives and 0.7% by physicians[85].

Classical authors' opinions have differed regarding hermaphrodites, persons
with both male and female genitalia. Some say that both must be circumcised,
while others say that only the organ passing urine should be cut because it
implies rights of inheritance[86]. Finally, for others, one
must delay circumcision until it is possible to tell which one of the two is
predominant. Cautiously, Al-Sukkari, a modern author, chooses the first
opinion, meaning circumcision of both sexes, to minimize the chances of
mistake[87].

Jurists are not unanimous regarding the age at which circumcision should be
carried out. Different opinions are presented: any time; at puberty; before 10
years of age (the age when one has often to hit the child to force him to
pray); at about 7 years for the boy; on the seventh day (some take the day of
birth into consideration, others not); especially not on the seventh day or
before (because it is a Jewish custom and one does not want to be put in the
same category with them). Al-Mawardi suggests that circumcision be done at 7
years of age at the latest, but preferably at 7 days or at 40 days, except in
case of inconvenience. That is Al-Sukkari's opinion for the boys. For the
girls, he suggests the age of 7 to 10 years, to help them cope with the
procedure[88].

According to testimony gathered by Wedad Zenie-Ziegler, female circumcision in
Egypt is done in principle one week after birth, but it can be done at 2
months, sometimes at 7 months or even 7 years[89]. Nawal El-Saadawi says that
in Egypt it takes place at the age of 7 or 8, before the girl starts
menstruating[90].

Jurists have asked themselves if persons who died without circumcision should
be circumcised. The majority of legists reject such an idea because it affects
the deceased's physical integrity (hurmah) and exhibits his private part
(`awrah); moreover, it is useless, the goal of circumcision being to
fulfil an act of worship and to be clean for prayer, which is of no use to the
deceased. For others, circumcision of the deceased is necessary; his foreskin
is placed in the shroud. They call on a narration by Mohammed, according to
which one must do to the dead what is done to those getting married.
Al-Sukkari, a modern author, leans toward the first opinion[91].

The Koran says: "Noone questions Him about anything He does, but men are
questioned" (21:23). God does not have to justify his norms even if Muslim
jurists are of the opinion that divine norms are intended to bring good to Man.
The criteria of goodness elude Man most of the time.

However, there is a tendency among the Muslims as well as the Jews today, to
try to justify religious norms a posteriori, conferring beneficial
results upon them, real or fictitious. It is a recourse to reason to justify
religion. Cases in point are circumcision and dietary taboos. It proves that
the idea of God hurting human beings simply in order to brand them like cattle
is not accepted anymore.

The supporters of male and female circumcision, after proving the existence of
a related religious norm, will buckle down to demonstrate the advantages of
circumcision as well as the disadvantages of non-circumcision, in order to
comfort the believer, while answering back to those opposed to it. As for the
opponents of female circumcision, they, unless they are unbelievers, rejecting
any religious justification, also fight on two fronts: after denying the
existence of a religious norm prescribing female circumcision (the only one
they are interested in), they try to prove its harmful characteristics in order
to ban it.

And if reason does not succeed in proving that religion is correct? Then, let
it be challenged, as will be seen further on.

Muslim authors skim over male circumcision. They only see advantages and, most
of all, the subject does not trigger any debate in the West. According to
Al-Hadidi (an opponent of female circumcision), male non-circumcision can cause
penile infections arising from urine droplets. It can develop into cancer,
requiring the penis to be amputated entirely[92]. Circumcision is even
believed to prevent cancer in the circumcised man's partner, as mentioned by
Doctor Al-Fangari, who goes on to state that it helps to extend the length of
copulation, thanks to the liberation of the glans[93]. Their Jewish counterparts
make the same type of arguments. It is enough to have the Christians, to whom
Saint-Paul suggests circumcision in their heart rather than in their flesh,
turn green with envy[94]! If
only Saint Paul could have heard our Jewish and Muslim medical experts before
rejecting the obligation to circumcise!

Imam Shaltut does not find any basis for male and female circumcision, be it in
the Koran or in the Sunnah from Mohammed. Therefore it must be judged
according to the general Islamic consensus which forbids hurting anyone, unless
advantages outnumber disadvantages. For the boys, he states that circumcision
is beneficial because it cuts off the foreskin which harbours filth and
promotes cancer and other diseases. As such, it is a protective and preventive
measure. Thus its mandatory quality in Muslim law[95].

Logically, if male circumcision were beneficial, it should be generalized. Male
circumcision cannot however be justified solely on the basis of its usefulness
in certain pathological conditions. A foot may be amputated under medical
imperative if it is gangrenous and amputation will then certainly be
beneficial. Nevertheless, nobody would call for generalized foot amputation
among the followers of any given religion[96]. The argument is compelling,
unless it can be shown that the relevant religious adepts have penises
noticeably different from those of their fellow humans.

Let us point out here that circumcision has its enthusiasts among Christians
who believe the Bible to be a scientific book. This is especially the case in
the U.S.A. where obstetricians "sever at birth the foreskins of future
Methodists, Adventists, Catholics, Sectarians of Love, if not good brave
Atheists". To them, uncircumcised males "can only be country people and
half-witted"[97]. In that
country, the number of new-born who are circumcised is estimated at 50%. But in
1975, the American health commission stated that circumcision was not a good
hygienic measure. Since then, circumcision has been reduced considerably[98]. The pro-circumcision people
then launched a campaign to persuade the commission to reverse its decision,
claiming that circumcision prevents infantile urinary tract infections and even
AIDS transmission, a claim denied by Swedish experts[99].

As noted above, male circumcision is of no interest to most people. Doctor
Gérard Zwang, quoted above, stands out as one of the very few opponents
of male circumcision in France. Not only does he not see any advantages, but he
notices disadvantages. He writes:

One must be extremely suspicious when magicians and shamans try to irrefutably
legitimate ritual sexual mutilations (unless one belongs to the clan of those
incurably naive ethnographers). As heirs of the only extra-European culture
touched by some sort of scientific thinking and often contributing to its
development, it is the Judaizers who provide the so-called "logical" arguments
in favour of circumcision[100].

He names the five "reasonable" reasons produced by the Western partisans of
circumcision, reasons which support those given by the Muslims:

1. Circumcision testifies to the legitimate concern of lifting the sexuality of
the individual to perfection;

2. Circumcision is a good hygienic precaution;

3. Circumcision prevents masturbation;

4. Circumcision prevents cancer;

5. Circumcision allows better control at the "plateau" stage.

After taking apart those reasons one by one[101], he points out that the
foreskin of the infant acts as a sheath preventing the glans from
soaking permanently in urine and protecting it from irritations and
inflammations due to contact with clothing, soaked swaddling clothes and
diapers. He insists that circumcision at birth is "practically always
responsible for inflamed stricture of the urinary meatus". The protective
function of the foreskin for the glans and the penis retains its usefulness
during erotic activities, thus the importance of the foreskin at the affective
level during childhood, youth and adulthood[102].

He concludes that "there is no [medical] reason to systematically deprive all
new-born, little boys or men of an integral part of the normal human anatomy".
Even for foreskins with problems, he advises against circumcision and prefers
those simple, surgical procedures which retain the foreskin. He recommends that
plastic surgeons apply themselves to mastering the technique of possible
preputial reconstruction for circumcised patients suffering from "balanic
peeling", one of the consequences of circumcision[103].

As for surgeons requested to perform circumcision, he asks them to refuse to
comply. If it is an adult who makes the request, the surgeon has the right to
raise the matter of conscience, as some do, based on liberalism, to avoid
carrying out abortions. If it is a normal child brought in by his parents, "the
surgeon is entitled to call upon the impossibility of committing an assault and
battery on a minor and advise them to wait until their offspring reaches his
majority"[104].

It might be necessary to add to the doctors' advice, the psychologists' answer
to these questions: what is the influence of circumcision on the victims of
paranoia[105]? on the conscious
or unconscious male rage and violence in the American culture? on the conflicts
between Muslims themselves or between Jews and Muslims? It would be also useful
to know what is the relation between circumcision and situational homosexuality
(by opposition to constitutional homosexuality).

Circumcision not carried out according to the sunnah is forbidden by all
Muslim religious circles. For some, "the practice of female circumcision as it
is carried out on their daughters by some women from backward countries, is an
offence punishable by law"[106]. Nobody comes to its defense
even if it is the most practiced form of circumcision in Muslim countries. This
condemnation is based mostly on the exciser's narration, mentioned
earlier. What is strange in this case is that those very religious circles do
not try to use this narration in a positive way to fight the practice. As an
example, it is estimated that 89.2% of the women in North Sudan are
circumcised: 82.3% by infibulation; only 19.2% of Christian women are
circumcised that way. More Christians (57.7%) than Muslims (20.8%) appear to
favour abolition of this practice for their daughters[107].

If these religious scholars, all male chauvinists, are opposed to female
circumcision not in compliance with the sunnah, they nevertheless do
approve of it when it is sunnah-conform. This type of female
circumcision, by the way, is not described fully: for some, it is only removal
of a minimal amount of clitoris skin in application of the exciser's
narration; for others, it involves the whole clitoris and labia minora.

The goal of defending female circumcision in compliance with the sunnah
is expressed in no uncertain terms by Al-I`tissam, an Islamic magazine from
Cairo. This magazine protests against the WHO, accusing the organization of
"distorting the truth of Islam"; Al-I`tissam requests Al-Azhar and all
religious scholars to "open their eyes and be on the alert for those ideas
coming to us from outside, so we can fight them, prove their foolishness and
save Islamic customs"[108].
Here are the advantages of female circumcision according to its male
supporters:

The number of nymphomaniacs is less among circumcised women. The husband may
catch this disease and even die of it[110]. Female circumcision
prevents vaginal cancer[111]
and swelling of the clitoris which could drive the woman to masturbation or
homosexual relations[112].

Female circumcision shields the girl from nervousness at an early age and
prevents her from getting a yellow face. This statement is based on a narration
by Mohammed: "Circumcision is makrumah for women" and "give them a
glowing face"[113]. The
exciser's narration is also quoted to say that circumcision makes a
woman's face more beautiful and makes her more attractive for her husband[114]. According to a supporter of
female circumcision, the latter brings good health and feminine grace to the
girl and protects her morality, chastity and honour, maintaining within reason,
of course, the necessary sexual sensitivity[115].

Doctor Hamid Al-Ghawabi admits that female circumcision does reduce the sexual
instinct in women, but he sees this as a positive effect. With age, the male
sexual instinct lessens. His circumcised wife will then be at the same level as
him. If she was not, her husband would be unable to satisfy her, which then
would lead him to drug-use in order to succeed[116].

This is the most frequently cited reason. Professor Al-`Adawi from Al-Azhar
says that female circumcision is makrumah, that is helps (the woman) "to
remain shy and virtuous. In the Orient, where the climate is hot, a girl gets
easily aroused if she is not circumcised. It makes her shameless and prey to
her sexual instincts, except those to whom God shows compassion"[117]. Judge `Arnus says that
female circumcision diminishes sexual instinct which, if not kept in control,
reduces the person to the condition of an animal, but if this sexual instinct
does not exist, then circumcision reduces her to a lifeless state. He favours
moderation and notes that intact men and women have, more often than not, a
"one track mind"[118]. Salim,
Chairman of the Muslim Supreme Court (abolished in 1955), reiterates that
female circumcision is a makrumah, a meritorious action, that the woman
is under no obligation to submit to, but preferably she should. He adds that
circumcision protects girls from infection, swelling of her external genitalia
and from strong psychic reactions and sexual excitement which, if repressed,
lead to neurosis or, if unleashed, lead to the path of vice. This happens
especially during youth, when hormones of reproduction are at their peak. Salim
goes on to describe this circumcision. The procedure consists of cutting off
the bulging part of the clitoris which is out of the hood "so as not to become
a cause of arousal while the girl is moving, rubbing against her clothing,
riding animals, etc... Thus its name khafd: to lower the level"[119]. Gad-al-Haq, Great Sheikh of
Al-Azhar, adds that our times call for female circumcision "because of mixing
of the sexes at public gatherings. If the girl is not circumcised, she subjects
herself to multiple causes of excitation leading her to vice and perdition in a
depraved society"[120].

- Psychosexual complications: in the woman: a sense of loss of her femininity,
lack of libido, less frequent coitus, absence of orgasm, depression and
psychosis, high rate of divorce; in the man: premature ejaculation, polygamy.

There is no surgical technique which will ever repair this mutilation, which
will ever bring back the erogenous sensitivity of the amputated receptors. The
erotic function in an excised woman is destroyed for ever. The surgeon can only
correct the complications; if the mutilated woman's genitalia will never again
give her pleasure, at least it should not cause her undue suffering[122].

The Muslim enthusiasts of female circumcision do not deny those complications,
but state that they arise out of the manner in which the surgery is performed,
mostly because nobody pays attention to the conditions laid down by Muslim law.
Al-Sukkari writes: if one goes to a barber for an appendectomy, must we
conclude that this form of surgery has never been provided for in an Islamic
book and thus should be banned because the way it is performed is wrong? He
adds that female circumcision has been a practice for centuries and is a custom
accepted by Muslim law. The so-called consequences never occurred in the past.
And if we hear of them today, the responsibility lies with those who perform
it[123].

We saw earlier that the enthusiasts of female circumcision called sunnah
plead in favour of it because it prevents the use of drugs. The opponents use
the reverse argument[124]. The
link between female circumcision and the hashish plague in Egypt has been
widely exposed by El-Masry. Female circumcision distorts sexual relations:
"Very few healthy males can fully succeed in bringing a circumcised woman to
orgasm. She has lost her capacity for pleasure. The man will soon have to admit
that he alone cannot do it. There is only one solution: hashish". He quotes
many references, including Police Chief Safwat for whom: "narcotics are widely
used in Egypt, because they are linked in people's minds to sexual activities,
themselves linked to excision, unknown in Europe". Doctor Hanna adds: "The man
will resort to narcotics to satisfy his wife sexually. Excision is responsible
for her lack of arousal and the husband has to take drugs to be able to hold
his erection as long as necessary". He states that women are the ones to
request that their husbands use drugs before sex: "They know from experience
that it is their only chance of reaching orgasm, for hashish is the only cure
for their mutilated clitoris"[125]. The Cairo magazine
Al-Tahrir draws the following conclusion in its issue of August 20, 1957: "If
you want to fight against narcotics, ban excision"[126].

The same link is observed between female circumcision and narcotics in Yemen
where the plague of qat is widespread. An attempt to ban it in the
British Colony of Aden, in April 1957, almost triggered a revolt. Yemenis saw
in this measure "an infringement upon their basic rights". Women themselves
showed their reprobation, claiming it was an attack on their conjugal lives.
Since June 24, 1958, the use of qat has been legal in Aden[127].

The woman, having no sexual release, becomes rebellious and neurotic. Instead
of protecting her morality, female circumcision leads her elsewhere looking for
sexual satisfaction at any cost. Thus the obsessive belief in djinn
(zar), which does not exist anywhere else but in Egypt "as if genies
(djinns) could only live in Egypt"[128].

For Doctor Al-Hadidi, there is no medical value in female circumcision,
contrary to male circumcision, since the woman does not have a foreskin
retaining germs[129]. Doctor
Nawal El-Saadawi denies also that female circumcision will reduce the incidence
of genital cancer[130].

The arguments on costs and benefits of male and female circumcision might be of
some value if one accepts an absolute parameter to begin with: respect for
physical integrity. Any infringement upon the latter must be forbidden or
permitted only on the basis of the costs and benefits of circumcision. At
present, this seems to be the case neither among Muslims, nor among others,
especially where male circumcision is concerned.

As for female circumcision, as we said earlier, Muslim religious circles are
opposed to it, if it is not conform to sunnah, mostly because of the
exciser's narration. As far as sunnah itself is concerned, those
circles refuse to condemn it on principle and the criteria mentioned above,
even if differences of opinion can be noticed among them.

Hamrush, Chairman of the fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar, rejects the idea
that female circumcision prevents diseases or keeps girls healthy since,
contrary to boys, they do not have a foreskin to harbour filth. He also rejects
the idea that it is a protection of the woman's honour and morality, keeping
her from throwing caution to the winds. If it were the case, then one would
assume that circumcision is an obligation, and not just a makrumah.
However, the Sheikh holds the opinion that female circumcision should be
performed to fulfil the teaching of Mohammed[131].

Professor Al-Laban says that simple scientific observation must not be used to
destroy the norms established by God (including male and female circumcision)
and announced by Mohammed, but rather confirm them[132]. If we do not understand the
wisdom of those norms, the deficiency is to be found in our reasoning, not with
God. The Islamic law is the final law and is to rule at all times. Our human
brains cannot possibly find fault with it. Mohammed does not speak from the
heat of passion[133]. He
explains how science confirms the religious norm. Sunnah circumcision
lets the blood vessels heal (what other types of circumcision do not) and makes
purification easy once the excrescence is cut off because it is this part which
retains urine and menstrual fluid. This wisdom of the Islamic norm was
subsequently acknowledged by science[134].

In an Egyptian fatwa of June 23, 1951, it is said:

Medical theories relative to diseases and to their cure are not constant; they
are subjected to changes with time and research. Therefore, it is impossible to
use them as grounds to criticize female circumcision. The Lawmaker, wise,
expert and knowledgeable, uses his wisdom to rectify the human creation.
Experience has taught us that, given time, the true meaning of the Lawmaker's
wisdom, which was hidden, is unveiled to us[135].

Al-Sukkari states that Mohammed never indicated any reservations regarding the
harmfulness of female circumcision. How, in these conditions, could any
ordinary man forbid it under this pretense? Can we imagine the Prophet keeping
silent about something hurtful to the girl[136]? Man has no power to allow
or to forbid, only God does, and his wishes are set out in the Koran or by His
Prophet[137]. If in spite of
that, some countries forbid female circumcision, it is a State decision and
does not make any difference: the religious law allows it[138].

Imam Shaltut, as mentioned above, does not see any reason for male or female
circumcision, either in the Koran or in the Sunnah of Mohammed. To him,
female circumcision has no medical value, the girl having no foreskin to hold
filth. He packs into one sack those for and those against female circumcision:
both groups go too far. He comes to the conclusion that female circumcision
could be a makrumah for men who are not used to feeling the clitoris
protruding; for the girl, it comes to the same as taking care of her
beauty, dabbing perfume or removing axillary hair[139]. Elsewhere, Imam Shaltut is
in favour of keeping the tradition of female circumcision until proven
harmful[140].

Sheikh Al-Nawawi comes to another result through the same reasoning. For him,
the narrations of Mohammed regarding female circumcision are weak and do not
have a raison d'être. Islam aimed to moderate this practice among
Arabs and it is still performed in this moderate form, without ever becoming
the rule, apart from exceptional cases. One cannot make a rule out of one
exception[141].

A less clear stand-point is taken by Al-Banna, Egyptian Deputy Minister for
Religious Affairs. To him, female circumcision cannot be separated from the
benefit criterion: God does not burden us, if there is no benefit. So, if there
is any value to circumcision, one must abide by it. If not, one must give it
up. Competent physicians must take a stand, having considered all girls from
different climates, because the problem might not be the same in every country,
or even with every girl. If a girl is in peculiar circumstances, she must be
circumcised; if not, let Nature take its course, as God intended it. As long as
no study has been done, Muslims are free to go either way[142].

According to Professor Khallaf, physicians may not condemn female circumcision
based on isolated cases alone, but compare excised and uncircumcised girls and
then give their opinion. If they conclude that female circumcision is harmful
and as such, they decide to forbid it, the prohibition will neither be contrary
to a religious text, nor to the unanimous position of religious scholars[143].

Doctor `Abd-al-Wahid presents a strange reasoning, to say the least. After
stating that female circumcision is forbidden the same way as it is forbidden
to chop off one's finger, he admits that the Lawmaker (God) gave permission for
the sunnah, any excess being forbidden. However, he adds that this form
of circumcision is allowed, but not mandatory and suggests that it be forbidden
due to its medical and psychological consequences, which he recounts in
detail[144].

The most daring and most coherent opinion coming from a religious leader
against female circumcision is that of Sheikh Abu-Sabib, a Sudanese, whom we
mentioned earlier. He spoke at the Seminar on Traditional Practices (Dakar,
1984). The narrations of Mohammed about female circumcision are not reliable.
They and the Koran do not require anyone to suffer, when science proves the
harm done by this mutilation[145].

Only the two last-mentioned opinions urge the banning of female circumcision
and opt in favour of physical integrity. Others take great care to saying
nothing about prohibition, even if some leave the choice up to the believer.
Let us study this prohibition at the State level.

The Muslim circles in favour of female circumcision see an imperialistic action
in the Western campaign against it. Al-Sukkari writes that, if some are trying
to forbid it, "it is because the West has succeeded in imposing secular
materialistic views on our sciences, our tradition, our artistic culture"[146]. Imam Shaltut who accepts
the idea of forbidding female circumcision if proven harmful, underlines the
fact that it should not be prohibited under pressure from others - a polite nod
toward the West - , but only if proven harmful[147].

Jomo Kenyatta, late President of Kenya, used to say: "Excision and infibulation
unite us tightly; they prove our fecundity"[148]. To which Pierre Leulliette
replies:

Millions of children between the age of 2 and 14 are horribly tortured in an
atmosphere of collective hysteria, in contempt of their genitalia, in scorn of
their bodies, in defiance of their lives... That barbarian culture! Is it not
the lowest manifestation of the unlimited, omnipresent phallocracy? Those
mutilations! Aren't they first and foremost an example of man acting out his
most secret hatred and deepest fear of woman[149]?

This problem is now on the agenda of international organizations. On July 10,
1958, the Economic and Social Committee of the United Nations invited
the WHO "to undertake a study on the persistence of customs involving ritual
practices on girls and on the measures in effect or planned to put an end to
those practices"[150]. The
answer was clear: "[The World Health Assembly] believes that the ritual
practices in question, resulting from social and cultural conceptions, are not
within the WHO's jurisdiction"[151]. And this, in spite of an
overwhelming report prepared by the WHO's very own Eastern Mediterranean
Regional Office[152].

In a communication on excision dated September 23, 1980, UNICEF explained that
its approach to eradicating a 2000 year old cultural and traditional practice
"is based on the belief that the best way to handle the problem is to trigger
awareness through education of the public, members of the medical profession
and practitioners of traditional health care with the help of local
collectivities and their leaders"[153].

In 1984, the Inter-African Committee stipulated that "for understandable
psychological reasons, it is the black women who should have the say in the
matter". This committee asked for restraint, in order that the project might be
successful, claiming that "the wave of uncontrollable and violent denunciations
of those mutilations on the part of Western countries" was doing more harm than
good[154]. On the subject of
legal prohibition, this same committee, in 1984, warned against "untimely haste
which would result in rash legal measures that would never be enforced"[155]. As for the health
professionals, they were quite satisfied with themselves in condemning "the
medicalisation and modernisation of the female circumcision procedure, as
non-conform to medical ethics" and to advise that "no medical or paramedical
personnel be allowed to practice it", for the same reason[156].

This problem is puzzling for the Western countries. Dominique Vernier writes:

As soon as the first preliminary investigations of cases on excision started
[in France] (the Press mentions them as early as 1982-83), the Justice
Department was put in an awkward position and has been ever since[157].

This perplexity is due to the principles of the French penal code. Indeed, the
parents have no intention to do violence to their children or to batter them,
but rather intend to respect a custom, without the application of which their
daughters, once adults, would not be able to integrate into their country of
origin[158]. On the other hand,
in practice, it is easy for a couple who want their daughter excised to take
her back to her country of origin, paralysing the law of the adopted country.
Last, but not least, even if the countries of origin adopt some laws against
those practices, those laws would not be able to defeat a massively accepted
practice, which has become an integral part of that society[159].

This debate about the right to be different was settled in favour of the girl's
right to physical integrity (but not the boy's).

The WHO gave up its above mentioned reservations of 1959. It became involved in
1977 in the creation of the first Workshop on female excision. In February
1979, its Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office organized in Khartoum the first
International Seminar on Traditional Practices affecting Women's and
Children's Health. This Seminar recommended that specific national policies
be adopted in order to abolish female circumcision[160]. In June 1982, the WHO made
a formal declaration of its position on excision to the Committee of Human
Rights of the United Nations. The WHO approved the recommendations made at
the Seminar in Khartoum and added: "It has always been the WHO's opinion that
female circumcision should never be performed by health professionals in any
situation under any conditions, be it in hospitals or other specialized
settings"[161]. The most recent
stand was taken in 1989: the Regional Committee of the WHO for Africa passed a
resolution urging the participating governments:

- to adopt appropriate policies and strategies in order to eradicate female
circumcision;

- to forbid medicalisation of female circumcision and to discourage health
professionals from performing such surgery[162].

A turnaround was also made by the Inter-African Committee. Whereas in 1984, it
had warned against promulgating laws against female circumcision, it requested
such laws in 1987, because "neither the efforts nor the research nor the
campaigns ever had any real impact"[163]. Three years later, it
reinforced its position, requesting promulgation of specific laws "forbidding
the practice of female genital mutilations and other sexual abuses and making
provision for sentencing anyone guilty of such practices". This law should
provide "an especially severe punishment for health professionals"[164].

Some Western countries have timidly followed in the footsteps of the two
above-mentioned organizations.

When acts of violence or privation have been habitually inflicted, the sentence
to be imposed upon the guilty party shall be: life imprisonment if there is
mutilation, amputation, deprivation of the use of a limb, blindness, loss of an
eye and other permanent disabilities or death, even if the guilty party did not
intend such a result.

This article is invoked against female circumcision even though the word is not
mentioned in the text. In Sweden, a 1982 law forbids any operation on an
external organ aiming at mutilating it or altering it definitely, whether or
not consent is given[165].
Great Britain did the same in 1985[166].

In Switzerland, article 122 of the Penal Code stipulates:

Anyone who has mutilated a person's body, one of the limbs or one of the
important organs, or rendered the limb or the organ unfit to function, will be
sentenced to a maximum of 10 years reclusion or to between 6 months and 5 years
of imprisonment.

Moreover, in 1983, the Central Committee for Medical Ethics of the Swiss
Academy of Medical Sciences took a very firm position against female
circumcision and its practice by medical professionals[167].

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is not clear about it. Article 24,
paragraph 3 states:

States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to
abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.

No definition is given of the expression "traditional practices detrimental to
the health of children". The travaux préparatoires are of no help
either. The definition therefore is left up to the Member States. Those States
will surely not hesitate to quote article 29 paragraph 1.c of this
Convention:

The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural
identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which
the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for
civilizations different from his or her own.

Lastly, let us point out the London Declaration born out of the First
Study Conference on Genital Mutilation of Girls in Europe/Western world
(London, July 6-8, 1992). This Declaration states: "Any form of genital
mutilation or genital injury to the girl child is a violation of her basic
human rights, and must be abolished". It asks national groups and individuals
to "promote a framework for legal action, based on either specific anti-FGM
[female genital mutilation] or on general laws against the injury to the body
of the child". This Declaration "urges all governments and all health
authorities to stand firm against any attempt to medicalise the genital
mutilation of or genital injury to the girl child"[168].

One must reiterate here that a distinction is wrongfully made at the medical
and intellectual level between male circumcision, which is generally accepted,
and female circumcision. Neither the WHO nor the Inter-African Committee, nor
UNICEF, nor the London Declaration, nor the Western laws forbidding female
circumcision make any mention of male circumcision. It is not mentioned in the
travaux préparatoires to article 24, paragraph 3 of the
Convention for the Rights of the Child either. Female circumcision is sometimes
mentioned, but never male circumcision[169].

One might have logically expected that those Western organizations and laws
would draw a distinction between the different forms of female circumcision, in
as much as minimal female circumcision can be compared to male circumcision.
But this is not the case as already seen. During the above mentioned Conference
of European Studies on Female Genital Mutilation, the Netherlands tried to have
such a distinction made, to no avail; the WHO vetoed it. Doctor Mehra,
representing the WHO, explained to me that this organization fears it would be
impossible to control the practice if one permitted one particular form[170].

This firm attitude opposed to all forms of female circumcision is not shared by
Muslim law. The latter makes a distinction between the permitted female
circumcision called sunnah, while other forms, though widely practiced,
are condemned by religious circles. This distinction seems also to apply in
Muslim countries.

In Sudan, a law of 1946 classified infibulation as an infraction punishable by
a fine and imprisonment. It was abrogated under public pressure and replaced by
an authorization for professional midwives to practice sunnah[171].

On an undated flyer, written in Arabic, the Sudanese Association of Struggle
against Traditional Practices states:

- Female circumcision (khafd) is an attack on the physical integrity and
an alteration of the human being created by God in the very best way and in the
very best form.

- Female circumcision is a savage butchery that divine religions do not
allow.

- Female circumcision is neither a duty nor a sunnah, but a practice of
the pre-Islamic era (al-gahiliyyah: the era of ignorance) against which
the Prophet warned us in his narration: "Cut lightly and do not overdo it as it
is more pleasant for the woman and better for the husband".

- Female circumcision does not protect chastity which is better guarded by
education promoting good morality and healthy teaching of Islam.

- Female circumcision preceded religions and is practiced by many peoples of
different religions and beliefs of which only the Sudan, Egypt and Somalia are
Muslim.

- Therefore, stop circumcising girls.

This organization, while rejecting female circumcision in general, seems, in
the 3rd paragraph, to propose the sunnah, instead of the pharaonic
circumcision now prevalent in Sudan. A document prepared by the National
Committee of Social Assistance in collaboration with UNICEF-Khartoum is doing
the same. This document explains that the light form of circumcision is named
sunnah which means it is conform with the tradition of Mohammed: it is a
way of legitimating it rather that eradicating it[172].

A similar attitude is adopted in Egypt. This country has promoted a
governmental decree (No. 74-1959) regarding female circumcision. The text is
far from clear. It states:

1. It is forbidden for physicians to perform the surgical procedure of female
circumcision. If one wishes it, then only partial circumcision may be carried,
but not total circumcision.

2. Female circumcisions are forbidden in the clinics of the Ministry of
Health.

3. Certified midwives have no right to perform any surgical procedure
whatsoever including female circumcision[173].

This text is taken from a recent collective report on the woman's life and her
health. The authors state that this text is not good as it does not forbid
female circumcision. A law should be promulgated to abolish once and for all
any kind of female circumcision[174].

Egyptian juridical works and anthologies of law pertaining to public health
never mention this decree. One never finds any judgements on it. On the other
hand, the Egyptian courts have convicted a barber for having practiced
circumcision on a boy who consequently died. Contrary to the physician, the
judgement states, the barber is not protected by law if the result of his
action is death or disability. The judge refused to consider laudable or
charitable intentions or the absence of criminal intent. In this case, the
Court applied article 200 of the Penal Code which makes provision for 3 to 7
years of forced labour or imprisonment in cases of voluntary injury without
intention to kill, but in fact causing death[175]. In another judgement, the
Court of Cassation stated that a midwife has no right to practice circumcision,
the right to perform surgery being reserved to physicians only, in pursuance of
the first article of law 415/1954. The Court added that any attack on physical
integrity, except in cases of necessity authorized by law, is punishable,
unless the acts are performed by a physician. The midwife had circumcised a boy
and mistakenly amputated his glans, causing permanent disability that the Court
estimated at 25%. The midwife was sentenced to 6 months forced labour,
suspended on condition of good behaviour during 3 years[176].

Everybody agrees that legal measures will never be enough to stop female
circumcision. A conscious awareness must be raised among the victims
themselves. First, one must try to understand the reasons for those practices.
In the meantime, in order to avoid the worst, shouldn't they be permitted to be
performed in hospitals, in a less severe form?

As we have noted above, the WHO, the Inter-African Committee, the Declaration
of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences and the London Declaration all dismiss
this possibility as ethically wrong. They even ask for strict sanctions against
members of the medical profession who perform female circumcision.

This attitude may be open to criticism. A radical legal prohibition will only
encourage female circumcision to go underground. It will then be performed by
persons without proper knowledge of the possible complications, thus
endangering the woman's health. The Senegalese representative raised the issue
while the Convention on the Rights of the Child was being drawn up. Thus the
actual phrasing of article 24, paragraph 3[177].

Dominique Vernier is of the opinion that the medicalisation of circumcision as
is practised among the urban intellectual elite of some African countries and
in some Italian hospitals, in spite of the physicians' hostility, should be
accepted. She suggests that symbolic excision be substituted for de
facto excision as it is done in Guinea, where the blacksmith's wife
performs a light cut sufficient to draw a few drops of blood. This is a way to
respect the ritual without mutilating the child[178].

Medical care implies the risk of legalising and perpetuating female
circumcision especially because of the economic repercussions. During the U.N.
Seminar in Ouagadougou, some mentioned that the medical profession takes the
place of the traditional matrons and excises in hospitals in order to make a
financial profit and, by reducing health risks, they perpetuate the practice: a
guarantee of making money. Their greed, having no limit, leads them to ignore
the horror behind each sexual mutilation. Well aware of the trust and respect
given to them by the masses, they abuse the naive parents and reassure them
that the custom is well grounded. According to those at the Seminar, one must
fight against such a tendency which is only going to add a new legitimacy to
excision[179].

A. Gaudio and R. Pelletier see in female circumcision "an expression of male
power"[180], "a demonic desire
to control female sexuality, an endless tyranny of the dominating male behind
the alibi of culture"[181].

Nawal El-Saadawi, a victim of excision, explains why female circumcision still
goes on in Arab society under the male iron will:

The importance given to virginity and an intact hymen in these societies is the
reason why female circumcision still remains a very widespread practice despite
a growing tendency, especially in urban Egypt, to do away with it as something
outdated and harmful. Behind circumcision lies the belief that, by removing
parts of girls' external genitals organs, sexual desire is minimized. This
permits a female who has reached the dangerous age of puberty and
adolescence to protect her virginity, and therefore her honour, with greater
ease. Chastity was imposed on male attendants in the female harem by castration
which turned them into inoffensive eunuchs. Similarly female circumcision is
meant to preserve the chastity of young girls by reducing their desire for
sexual intercourse[182].

She adds that female circumcision is a means of dominating women in a
patriarchal society where a man can have more than one wife. The society uses
various means to sexually bind her to one man and to control who is the father
of her children[183].

For Doctor Gérard Zwang, the motive behind circumcision is "metaphysical
guilt". It is the motivation "for all the sexual mutilations which human beings
have inflicted upon themselves since they discovered the stone knife and the
metal blade, a motivation which renders any non-religious, non-metaphysical
consideration null and void":

As a result of metaphysical culpabilization, men present sacrifices to gods,
divinities, spirits: any earthy pleasures, carnal desires, organs destined to
provide pleasure. In order to be among the "chosen ones" in another life, be it
extra-, or supra-, or infra-terrestrial, which follows automatically (!) upon
death. That is the origin of fasts, Lent, Ramadan, prohibited foods; that is
the origin of ordinances restricting sexual life: chastity, abstinence,
continency, reshaping of genitalia (circumcision, excision, infibulation,
subincision, hemicastration, etc...)[184].

Economics can also explain why circumcision is still going on, to take an
example mentioned above, when it is performed in hospitals. It is also evident
among traditional circles where midwives are not about to give up so lucrative
a practice[185]. In some areas,
the profession of exciser is inherited from mother to daughter and the economic
survival of the family depends upon it. If the practice were to be eradicated,
it would remove the family's only source of income. Accordingly, some have
recommended retraining women who practise excision; as matrons, they can give
up practicing excision and still earn a living[186]. Economics plays a role in
male circumcision as well. In Canada, where medical insurers in some Provinces
refuse to reimburse the costs of circumcision, it appears to be becoming less
common[187].

Also, the dowry is higher if the girl is a virgin at the time of her marriage.
Virginity is a money-making asset. That is why some nations are so keen on
infibulation[188].

Nawal El-Saadawi states that the girls with whom she talked were not aware of
the prejudice caused by their circumcision. Some even thought it was good for
health and hygiene, especially because, in their language, the word
taharah means purification.

Girls believed that the purpose of the surgery was just that: purification.
People would not speak ill of them, they would behave and their husbands would
not be disgusted. After healing had taken place, they had the inner
satisfaction of being purified. Nawal El-Saadawi got the same type of response
from her medical students who had never been taught, be it by teachers or by
textbooks, the sexual function of the clitoris. No question was ever put in
exams on the role of the clitoris. The clitoris was considered unimportant[189].

According to the testimonies gathered by Wedad Zenie-Ziegler from Egyptian
women, peasants practice female circumcision because "it has always been done":
they do not know why[190]. "The
idea that it could be a mutilation is foreign to them"[191].

Wedad Zenie-Ziegler adds that women will "make efforts to perpetuate this
ritual as long as they do not understand the uselessness of the sacrifice and
that it is part of an immense conspiracy aimed at subjecting them to
male domination"[192].

The Third International Symposium on Circumcision was held from May 22-25,
1994, at the University of Maryland, College Park, Washington DC. I was invited
to the symposium to speak of the attitudes of Muslims regarding male and female
circumcision[193]. The
following report on the symposium gives an idea about the problem of male
circumcision in the United States.

The symposium was organized by NOCIRC[194], and was attended by a
hundred or so people belonging to the three great monotheistic religions
(Christians, Jews and Muslims), coming from the United States, Canada, Mexico,
Australia, England, France, Switzerland, Somalia and Egypt.

About forty of the symposium attendees delivered speeches, which were followed
by open debates. We also viewed two films, one on male circumcision in the
United States, and the other on female circumcision in Somalia.

Every aspect of circumcision was considered: medical, psychological, economic,
religious and legal. My own speech concerned circumcision within Islamic law.
It was preceded and followed by speeches on circumcision within Christianity
and Judaism.

An exposition of photographs and art work was arranged in a room where one
could also purchase or receive gratis numerous materials and publications
produced primarily by the conference attendees and other groups that attended
the symposium.

The symposium concluded on May 25th with a banquet during which awards were
presented to individuals who had contributed to the fight against male and
female circumcision. On May 26th there was a demonstration in Washington DC
against circumcision (see below).

As its title indicates, this symposium was the third of its kind. Although
female circumcision was discussed, this symposium principally dealt with male
circumcision, which demonstrates in itself that this form of circumcision is a
real problem, especially in the United States. What is the nature of this
problem?

Infant circumcision in the United States began not for medical or religious
reasons, but for social reasons. It began in the 1870s as a Victorian attempt
to prevent or cure masturbation, which at the time was believed to cause
bedwetting, alcoholism, insanity, curvature of the spine and other physical and
mental disorders. The practice spread from England concurrently to other
English-speaking countries (Canada, Australia and the United States).

When the masturbation theory was dispelled and declared false in 1948 by the
British National Health Service, the rate of circumcision was reduced to less
than 0.5% in England. The rate of circumcision in Canada and in Australia also
was lowered, but remains still around 20%.

In the United States, with the development of hospitalized births, male infant
circumcision remains a common practice. The American medical community has
tried to find "medical" justifications for the continuation of circumcision.
Even today, the United States remains the only country on earth where the
majority of male infants are circumcised for non-religious reasons. This rate
is today 60% with differences from one region to another. Approximately 3'300
babies each day are submitted to circumcision in American hospitals. This
represents more than 1'25 million children circumcised each year. Several
babies die as a consequence of the operation, which is performed without
anaesthesia, and which results in numerous medical complications. Circumcision
is considered today as one of the reasons for the violence which rages in
American society, where the crime rate is six times larger than that in Europe:
That which society does to its children, its children do to society. In effect,
circumcision injures the brain of the child. It also impairs the normal
functioning of the adult sexuality. On average one forth of the skin of the
baby's penis is amputated. This has forced many Americans to seek restoration
of their foreskin (see below). Many authorities estimate that the violence done
to the infant during circumcision plays a role in the fatal conflicts in the
Middle East between Muslims and Jews, two groups that practice circumcision.

In the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics has adopted a neutral
position towards male circumcision, leaving the decision to parents. One cannot
say, however, that they are properly informed of the implication of their
decision. Circumcision takes place in hospitals in the first days of life.
Doctors rarely give information on the benefits or risks of the surgery. They
even exert psychological pressure by expressing disapproval when parents refuse
to consent to the operation. The operation has become a sort of routine,
notably in the lower and middle classes. It is performed in a barbarous (this
word is not too strong) manner by doctors with clear financial motivations, at
the request of ignorant parents, and in any case, it is forced upon infants who
cannot express their wishes in the matter. Certainly, in rare instances,
circumcision can be useful in the treatment of certain diseases like phimosis
(but even in this case, there are medical means of treatment without
resorting to circumcision). But the real practice of male circumcision in the
United States, like everywhere else in the world, denotes a trivialization
responsible for a contemptuous regard for the physical integrity of the
child.

During the symposium, the participants tried to see how one could put an
end to male circumcision. In order to do this, it is necessary to consider the
roles of those responsible for the practice of circumcision.

Doctors form an imposing body that is very difficult to confront. The
participants of the symposium expressed little confidence in them. One
participant indicated that it was pointless to try to convince doctors, for
like all lobbies, they are against society. Doctors profit by the operation of
circumcision and one can hardly expect them to willingly reduce their income.
Circumcision and the commerce of the foreskin constitutes a lucrative industry
in the United States, amounting to several hundred million dollars a year.
Despite this, some doctors have been converted and have become opponents of
circumcision, especially those at the end of their careers who have less to
loose. Some came to bring their testimony and to argue against circumcision.
One of these gave to NOCIRC the Circumstraint tray[195] on which he used to perform
circumcisions and delivered an address entitled, "Leave it alone!".

Nurses also participate in circumcision. These nurses can be easily mobilized
against circumcision by reason of the atrocious suffering they have witnessed
during the circumcision of babies. Circumcision is performed without
anaesthesia. We viewed a film of the operation and heard repeatedly the screams
of the infant being operated upon. It was truly unbearable. It is not an
accident that circumcision is always performed behind closed doors, the parents
not being permitted to watch. The baby is strapped by its hands and feet and
immobilized on a molded plastic tray which conforms to its body. The foreskin
is pulled to its maximum length and crushed by a metal clamp before it is
sliced off with a scalpel. We saw one of these plastic trays: a veritable
instrument of torture.

Nurses, however, fear that they will be relieved of their duties and dismissed
if as conscientious objectors they refuse to participate in the operation. The
founder of NOCIRC, for example, was a nurse. She lost her job because of her
opposition to circumcision. Actually, it would seem that opposition is now
becoming easier to assert. A dozen nurses from St. Vincent Hospital in Santa
Fe, New Mexico (of which several were Jewish)[196], were present at the
symposium and gave us their reasons for taking their decision. These reasons
are:

- Neonatal circumcision is a violation of a new-born male's right to a whole
(intact) body.

- There are no compelling medical reasons for amputation of the penile
foreskin. Amputating the foreskin deprives the infant of a protective and
sexually functional part of his body.

- Circumcision is a surgical procedure with risks of complications, including
bleeding, infection and mutilation.

Insurance companies could play an important role in the abolition
of male circumcision. In Canada, where insurance companies refuse to pay the
cost of circumcision, the rate of circumcision is falling dramatically. This is
also the case in certain American states. The organizers and participants of
the symposium would like to convince the insurance companies to cease covering
the expense of male circumcision.

Male circumcision is practiced by the adherents of the three monotheistic
religions: Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

Concerning Jews, the mandate for male circumcision comes from the Bible. There
one reads:

God told Abraham: "...Here is our alliance which shall be observed between me
and you, i.e. thy race after thee, may all your males be circumcised.
You shall have the flesh of your foreskin cut off and it shall be a sign of
alliance between me and you...When they reach their 8th day all your males
shall be circumcised from generation to generation... My alliance shall be
branded in your flesh as a perpetual alliance. The uncircumcised, the male
whose foreskin has not been cut off, this very life shall be cut off. He
violated my alliance" (Genesis17:9-14).

It is in fact from this community that the fiercest opposition to the abolition
of circumcision is mounted. The so-called "medical" justifications for
circumcision were formulated principally by Jewish doctors. It would seem even
that the development of male circumcision among Christians in the United States
was a premeditated action on the part of the Jewish medical community after the
second World War. By circumcising as many Christians as possible, they sought
to make it more difficult to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews in the event
of a future persecution of the Jews. It would seem also that there is a hint of
Jewish proselytising behind circumcision : A circumcised Christian is more
easily converted to Judaism than an uncircumcised one because he will not fear
having to submit to circumcision as an adult. Notice here that the Western
world has passed laws prohibiting female circumcision, but dares not to do the
same for male circumcision for fear that they will be considered anti-Semitic
by the Jews. One must note, however, that even the voice of American Jews is
being added to the cry against the practice of circumcision (see below).

Muslims systematically practice male circumcision. However, the Koran makes no
mention of circumcision. On the contrary, one can find verses which can be
interpreted as being against circumcision:

Our Lord, You did not create all this in vain (3:191).

He perfected everything He created (32:7).

[The devil said]: "I will mislead them, and I will create in them false
desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattles, and to deface the fair
nature created by God" (4:119).

One can deduce from the first verses that the foreskin is an integral part of
the human body created by God, and that one should not imagine that by cutting
it one is perfecting the work of God. The third verse considers the alteration
of Nature as obedience to the Devil.

The practice of male circumcision among Muslims derives from the practice of
the Jews: Each Muslim must be circumcised like Abraham, who is considered a
model man. One invokes also the recitations attributed to Mohammed. These
recitations, however, were collected 200 years after the death of Mohammed.

Concerning Christians, Saint Paul advocates circumcision of the heart instead
of circumcision of the flesh (Epistle to the Romans 2:29). Despite this, there
is a trend among evangelical Christians in the United States, who follow the
Bible to the letter and who believe that this book contains principles of
medical science which the believer must follow, such as circumcision. According
to them, "what is good enough for the Chosen People, is good enough for
all mankind". Mormons too practice circumcision even though their holy book
considers the dictates of the Bible concerning circumcision to be obsolete.

International organizations refuse to involve themselves in this
issue. They are afraid of being considered anti-Semitic. This is the case
notably with the World Health Organization, The Population Council of the UN,
the Inter-African Committee, UNICEF, and Amnesty International. These
organizations, responsible for overseeing the respect of human rights, are
always ready to criticize -correctly so - female circumcision, but have become
accomplices in the violation of the rights of male infants to an intact body.
The fear of anti-Semitism paralyzes them.

Is it necessary to pass a law criminalizing male circumcision? This was the
question that arose frequently at the symposium. Although numerous Jews who are
opposed to circumcision attended the symposium, they were generally against the
adoption of such a law. The majority of participants, however, were of the
opinion that a law should be enacted which criminalizes male circumcision along
with female circumcision. There is no reason to distinguish between the two
forms of circumcision: both are mutilations of healthy sexual organs of
non-consenting children. There is no justification for such mutilations. If the
foreskin were useless, Nature would not have make it. It is imperative in any
case to leave the child intact until the age of 18 when he will have the
freedom to decide for himself whether he wants to be circumcised or not. He is
then even free to have his ears amputated if he chooses, but one does not have
the right for forcibly remove his body parts when he is a baby.

I was the only lawyer present at the symposium. I requested that next time the
organizers should invite other lawyers and professors of law in order to be
able to begin a law project with the aim of condemning male and female
circumcision. I also proposed:

- To identify those professors of law who might be interested in presenting
this subject in their lectures and to make available to them the necessary
materials;

- to provide law libraries documents to enable researchers to make further
studies in this area.

Certainly, the adoption of a law criminalizing male circumcision would provoke
the anger and opposition of the Jews. But if a law were adopted, the United
States would be the first to be able to do so because of its unconditional
support of Israel. This is the only country which need have no fear of being
considered anti-Semitic, and it is in this country that opposition to
circumcision is the best organized.

This title may cause laughter. It is actually a technique known in the past,
notably in the Hellenistic Period (323-30 B.C.) and the Roman Empire (27 B.C.
to 140 A.D.). It is being revived in the United States.

This technique starts with the viewpoint that male circumcision is an affront
to the physical integrity and an impairment of the normal functioning of the
male organ, especially when a large part of the foreskin is amputated. This
technique consists in stretching the skin of the penis in order to compensate
for the parts removed in circumcision. One must pull the skin of the penis and
tape it in place in the first stage before suspending metallic objects of a
certain fixed weight using surgical tape. The process takes about 15 months
before the skin of the penis returns to the length it would have had had it not
been circumcised.

This technique was used by Jim Bigelow on himself and on others[197]. Jim Bigelow is not a
physician, but a psychologist. He earned his doctorate in psychology at
Claremont Graduate School and served as a Professor of Psychology at Whittier
College. He also pastored several Evangelical churches. He has explained this
technique in a book[198]. I
bought this book, which is full of observations not only about restoration of
the foreskin, but also about circumcision in general, notably as it is
practised in the United States. It is a scientific publication, 239 pages long,
very serious and heavily documented. It is probably the most vibrant attack on
male circumcision ever written.

Jim Bigelow is a charming man, full of humor. He was present at the symposium.
He delivered a speech using many slides. He did not hesitate to mention his
history of success and confessed to me at the end that he wrote the book in the
spirit of Christian charity. The restoration of the foreskin using his method
was successfully achieved by hundreds of circumcised men, not only Christians,
but also Jews (a fact which has not failed to provoke the anger of Rabbis).
Received at first with skepticism by the medical community, his publication and
his technique has ended by being recognized. Several Europeans have tried it.
Two doctors even came to the symposium from Australia. Testimony from numerous
Christians and Jews in the auditorium offered support to Jim Bigelow, and
confessed that they experienced an enormous increase in sexual pleasure after
restoration. Furthermore, many support groups for circumcised men wishing to
restore their foreskin exist all over the United States, and even in Europe
with the mission of providing free advice and moral support[199].

On the 26 of May the organizers of the symposium and the participants made a
demonstration in Washington in front of the Physicians Committee for
responsible medicine (P.O.Box 6322, Washington DC 20015). Many participants
brought with them copies of their birth certificates, signed by the doctor who
circumcised them. In front of this organization they burned their birth
certificates along with copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which does not protect the rights of children against sexual mutilation. As
this organization is situated across the street from a national television
station, several photographers and cameramen were present at the
demonstration.

The director of the organization (Mr. Neal Barnard, M. D.) asked that the
demonstrators form a committee to meet him. The president of NOCIRC, the
president of NOHARMM[200], two
other members of NOCIRC, a Jewish nurse, who is a conscientious objector who
refuses to participate in circumcision, and myself (a Christian of Palestinian
origin) were selected. The discussion lasted about 45 minutes.

The director was very nice and allowed each a chance to speak. I introduced
myself as a Swiss Lawyer, a Christian of Palestinian origin, and the nurse
introduced herself as an American Jew, proud to be in my company as a
Palestinian. This served to relax the director. He said that there were so many
medical problems to regulate in the United States that he could not take up the
problem of circumcision without ignoring some other problem. He also mentioned
the budget problem, to which we replied, that by beginning with respect for the
child, he would have less to bother with and at the same time would save a lot
of money. As for our goals, we told him that it was necessary to educate
parents and to make a law forbidding male as well as female circumcision. The
child does not give his consent, and in the case of circumcision the parents
cannot give such consent. In any case, in order for the parents to give valid
consent, it is necessary that they be informed, which is never the case in the
United States. I expressed my indignation at the high and unjustified rate of
circumcision performed in the United States; a practice which violates the same
human rights which the United States pretend to defend.

After leaving the meeting with the director, the Jewish nurse and I declared
before the cameras that this marked the very first time in human history that a
Jew and a Palestinian stood united to protect each others children instead of
killing them as in the Middle East. We were very proud indeed.

This feeling of pride was shared by all the participants of the symposium. All
had the sense of being pioneers and that taking this position had historic
significance. It is the first time in history that a group has decided to fight
to put an end to a practice unanimously considered to be barbaric and
degrading.

The various speeches of the symposium are being published. I fervently hope
that the European medical community will take an interest in this research and
will take a position against both male and female circumcision. I especially
hope that European nurses will follow the example of the courageous Santa Fe
nurses and will refuse to assist in any more circumcisions.

In our opinion, a God who demands that his believers be mutilated and branded
on their genitals the same as cattle, is a God of questionable ethics. It could
be legitimate to perform either male or female circumcision, as any other
surgery, for specific, extremely rare, medical reasons on specific individuals.
But to arbitrarily mutilate children, boys or girls, under the pretext that it
is for their own good, shows an influence of cynicism and fanaticism.

That is why there is no valid justification of the distinction made between
male and female circumcision. Doctor Zwang goes further: "Female circumcision
will never stop as long as male circumcision is going on. How do you expect to
convince an African father to leave his daughter uncircumcised as long as you
let him do it to his son?"[201]
There is no alternative but to condemn the attitude of international and
non-governmental organizations which dissociate one type of circumcision from
the other, giving legitimacy to male circumcision in the process.

Religion has been a means of justifying both male and female circumcision. It
is time to expose the irrationality behind this thinking and reveal the harmful
influence of some religious circles which are in favour of it or refuse to
denounce it.

That is the goal of this study which, I hope, will contribute to the respect of
the rights of all children.

For more information

I possess a great number of documents on male and female circumcision. They are
at the disposal of all interested persons. I am also ready to discuss this
problem with those interested. I may be contacted at the following address:
Sami Aldeeb, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, Dorigny, 1015 Lausanne,
Switzerland. Tel. 021/6924912. Fax 021/6924949. Email: <sami.aldeeb@isdc-dfjp.unil.ch>